I'd love to see the quote from Nolan or anyone involved with the production that says venom was too unrealistic.

The anesthetic concept just worked better for the story and themes.

That post was addressed to those that try to argue that the Venom drug could not work in the Nolanverse, not to Nolan and the production crew.

On the topic of it working better, I disagree. I think having the Venom drug would've made much more sense and would've worked better for 2 reasons:

1) We see Bane destroying a pillar and break the back of a guy wearing armor all with his bare hands. No human being can do realistically that. Him having an enhanced drug like the Venom drug or any other sort of advanced steroid would've helped it made more sense for why he could do all those things realistically speaking.

2) The Venom drug is an example of Bane's physical, mental, and emotional strength. Many of the people that the Santa Prisca scientists experimented on have died from the Venom drug. Then they brought Bane in because they considered him to be the perfect man for the job. The fact that he was able to not only survive the drug but have the ability to control it is what made him so terrifying and worthy of an opponent to Batman to begin with. That is more impressive than a guy on pain meds that would presumably die not too long after you separate him from the meds IMHO.

Also, to address your post from WAY back about Nolan that I never got the chance to reply to, no I am not calling Nolan a liar but I do think Ledger's death affected his vision for the third movie - either from a story point of view, emotional point of view, or both - and he just didn't know what to do from that point on. Also, I'm not sure I can trust him anymore on what he says about the trilogy since I've seen him contradict himself a couple of times already if you compare everything he said pre-TDKR with everything from post-TDKR. That's just my view though.

As for me reading too much into the Robin line, I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was that what he said about Robin and Bale being a "young Batman" greatly implies that even if the ending would've been the same, he did not plan for Bruce to reach the end of his journey that quick. In his mind, Bruce was nowhere near retiring for 8 years or retiring overall yet.

As for your response about Bruce quitting, you missed my point entirely. Yes, there are ways to make Bruce retire. Heck, I'll go as far as to say that maybe you can find a way to have Bruce retire for good leaving Batman completely behind. My problem with the ending wasn't so much the fact that Bruce retired - even though that bugs me since I can't see Batman doing that but that's a personal preference - but the way everything was executed. Gotham was literally in a worse condition than it ever was. Worse than at the end of Begins when it got hit with fear gas. Worse than at the end of TDK when it almost lost all hope. The city and its people have literally almost tore themselves apart in a way it never did before. The Dent Act is also gone and although all the criminals are arrested at the end of TDKR, what exactly will keep them in jail now? Heck, the argument that everyone who likes TDKR uses to defend Nolan for dropping the whole "freaks" theme is that the Dent Act and Harvey's image is what got rid of them/pushed them away from Gotham. I don't agree with that argument but for the sake of argument, let's say it is true. By that logic, the freaks would be back by the end of TDKR. Bruce retires at the worst time possible - that's the first problem.

The second problem is that Bruce lies to everyone by faking his own death and by saying the autopilot doesn't work even though one of the messages in the movie is that lying is wrong even if it is for the greater good, which is why everyone that lied at the end of TDK (Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, etc.) suffers the consequences for that in this movie.

The third and biggest problem is Bruce's plan on how to keep Batman alive while being retired. It is basically finding a replacement. Fine. No problem. Who is his replacement? A guy he only knew for like 2 scenes that he all of a sudden trusts now. How can Bruce trust Blake when he literally just had like just 3 short scenes with him? On top of that, he doesn't even bother to at least stay in Gotham for a few months to train Blake AKA a rookie cop with nowhere near the experience required to be Batman before he decides to retire in Europe with Selina. He literally just gives him the Batcave and leaves. He doesn't even know if Blake will want to become a vigilante. It goes back to the analogy I gave about a driving instructor just passing the car keys to one of his newest students and saying "Here. You're on your own. I got better things to do." Would it have hurt to keep an eye on him at least for a few months?

That post was addressed to those that try to argue that the Venom drug could not work in the Nolanverse, not to Nolan and the production crew.

On the topic of it working better, I disagree. I think having the Venom drug would've made much more sense and would've worked better for 2 reasons:

1) We see Bane destroying a pillar and break the back of a guy wearing armor all with his bare hands. No human being can do realistically that. Him having an enhanced drug like the Venom drug or any other sort of advanced steroid would've helped it made more sense for why he could do all those things realistically speaking.

2) The Venom drug is an example of Bane's physical, mental, and emotional strength. Many of the people that the Santa Prisca scientists experimented on have died from the Venom drug. Then they brought Bane in because they considered him to be the perfect man for the job. The fact that he was able to not only survive the drug but have the ability to control it is what made him so terrifying and worthy of an opponent to Batman to begin with. That is more impressive than a guy on pain meds that would presumably die not too long after you separate him from the meds IMHO.

Yea I like this.

Plus I think it's dumb how Bane is almost a cripple without the gas, but then is all of a sudden superior to Batman on the gas. If anything the gas would just get him back to normal. He should have not had the back injury, but instead use the gas to elevate his normal state even higher. Then when Batman takes away his gas, Bane loses the fight because:

The funny thing is I thought it made sense in a way that Bane punches through the pillar AFTER Batman breaks the mask. He's like a wild animal at that point, completely unhinged and in some ways, even more dangerous.

He's not weaker without the mask, he goes into more of a berserker mode, but he's also sloppier. Batman won because he kept his composure and was more calculating in the second fight. As opposed to him just being weaker after Batman severs a venom tube.

It's all a matter of taste, but I thought movie Bane was an improvement and had more layers to him thematically. I've already had that debate with other posters though and don't feel like rehashing it.

Shikaramaru, I respect your opinions, but we see TDKR so differently I don't even know where to start. Frankly I'm a bit exhausted from debating this film. No matter how many paragraphs either of us throw at it, no minds are getting changed between the two of us. I think Bruce picked the perfect time to retire. Gotham needs to rebuild, rebuilding on its own will help strengthen it from within. Kinda like how New York bounced back after 9/11, but on a much larger scale. I think the whole point is it's now up to Blake. Bruce doesn't know or not whether he'll want to be a vigilante. It's up to Gotham AND Blake whether there will be a need for a new protector again. But he needed someone to entrust the Batcave to, otherwise it'd be lost forever. It's more of an insurance policy. He also didn't know Blake would be quitting the force when he made out his will. I also think people have grossly oversimplified the "lying is bad, mmmk" message. Lying is a part of life. Everyone does it, and it's not going away any time soon. I don't even think TDKR definitely tries to state that Batman and Gordon did the wrong thing in TDK. We're given Gordon's point of view, and he doesn't seem to entirely regret it. He still believed in the reasons they did it for. The difference is, at least this time Gotham is not left worshiping a false idol. The true hero (of both TDK and TDKR) has now finally earned his rightful place in the hearts of Gothamites. The debate just spins on and on.

The funny thing is I thought it made sense in a way that Bane punches through the pillar AFTER Batman breaks the mask. He's like a wild animal at that point, completely unhinged and in some ways, even more dangerous.

He's not weaker without the mask, he goes into more of a berserker mode, but he's also sloppier. Batman won because he kept his composure and was more calculating in the second fight. As opposed to him just being weaker after Batman severs a venom tube.

It's all a matter of taste, but I thought movie Bane was an improvement and had more layers to him thematically. I've already had that debate with other posters though and don't feel like rehashing it.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Shikamaru, I respect your opinions, but we see TDKR so differently I don't even know where to start. Frankly I'm a bit exhausted from debating this film. No matter how many paragraphs either of us throw at it, no minds are getting changed between the two of us. I think Bruce picked the perfect time to retire. Gotham needs to rebuild, rebuilding on its own will help strengthen it from within. Kinda like how New York bounced back after 9/11, but on a much larger scale. I think the whole point is it's now up to Blake. Bruce doesn't know or not whether he'll want to be a vigilante, that's the whole point. But he needed someone to entrust the secrets of the Batcave too otherwise it'd be lost forever. The debate just spins on and on.

I know how you feel. I'm getting to a point where I'm getting really burned out of debating TDKR as well. I was actually sick of debating this film for a while now until a debate with Anno about it got me to like debating about the movie again and now I'm starting to get burned out again.

It's funny how the first thing we both said to each other when we first met was how tired we were of the whole TDKR debate even though we see the film in such different ways. lol

To clear one thing up though, I actually don't hate TDKR as much as you would think I do. I think the movie is ok and I do like a lot of things about it but I when I say that the movie is "bad", I don't mean that it is bad in the same way how something like Batman & Robin or the Transformers trilogy is bad. I mean that the movie is "bad" going by the standard set by the first 2 films and by the standard that the film is trying to set for itself.

I know how you feel. I'm getting to a point where I'm getting really burned out of debating TDKR as well. I was actually sick of debating this film for a while now until a debate with Anno about it got me to like debating about the movie again and now I'm starting to get burned out again.

It's funny how the first thing we both said to each other when we first met was how tired we were of the whole TDKR debate even though we see the film in such different ways. lol

To clear one thing up though, I actually don't hate TDKR as much as you would think I do. I think the movie is ok and I do like a lot of things about it but I when I say that the movie is "bad", I don't mean that it is bad in the same way how something like Batman & Robin or the Transformers trilogy is bad. I mean that the movie is "bad" going by the standard set by the first 2 films and by the standard that the film is trying to set for itself.

It's all good. I have no problem with you at all Shika. You've always presented your views on the film in a respectful, reasonable and non-antagonistic way. If I ever got heated in any of our debates, it wasn't personal at all, just my passion for the movie coming out. It's fun for a while, but I think there's a point you can reach where it gets a bit old and both of us can probably already anticipate what the other is going to say next. The Joker and I reached this point many months ago, and now we rarely get entangled in debates and when we interact it tends to be regular discussion or agreeing with one another.

And to be fair, when I made that post a couple weeks back or whenever it was, I was kind of in "debate" mode too thanks to milost reigniting everything for a bit. Now things have cooled down again and I'm fine with that.

It's all good. I have no problem with you at all Shika. You've always presented your views on the film in a respectful, reasonable and non-antagonistic way. If I ever got heated in any of our debates, it wasn't personal at all, just my passion for the movie coming out. It's fun for a while, but I think there's a point you can reach where it gets a bit old and both of us can probably already anticipate what the other is going to say next. The Joker and I reached this point many months ago, and now we rarely get entangled in debates and when we interact it tends to be regular discussion or agreeing with one another.

And to be fair, when I made that post a couple weeks back or whenever it was, I was kind of in "debate" mode too thanks to milost reigniting everything for a bit. Now things have cooled down again and I'm fine with that.

I'm very happy to hear you think that. I sometimes feel that I sound a bit too harsh and antagonistic in my posts. I'm glad I don't come off as that. As for you, I never got the impression that you were ever heated during our discussions. Quite the opposite actually. You always seem more calm than a lot of users here (that's not to say that most people here sound angry or disrespectful).

If you think about it, we have had the exact same arguments since last July. Nothing has changed for the most part. People arguing about whether or not stuff got contradicted, the 8 year gap, how Bruce gets back to Gotham, the ending, the knee brace, John Blake, etc. That's probably why we feel so burned out by this point. Some of us even sound like we are going crazy at this point, and insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results AKA using the same arguments over and over again and expecting to win the debate this time .

At the same time though, there is nothing else to talk about which is why we keep resorting to the same arguments about the same movie over and over again. At least with the previous movies, we knew we would get a sequel and we would balance out the discussions about the latest Batman movie with speculation on the next movie, whatever the next movie was at the time. But in this case, we don't know in which direction Batman in live-action is going, whether or not it will be rebooted, or even how long it will be till the next Batman film comes so there is sadly nothing to talk about but TDKR. We are basically stuck in limbo. The TDKR debates will probably die down when Man of Steel comes out. I'm assuming it's going to get our minds off TDKR for a while.

^^I think there's much more to talk about while we're bored. For those who like the movie, the symbolism (I recently wrote an analysis about the symbolism and parallels in the film myself) and for those who don't like it, what they think could have improved it (without just the uncreative "this sucks") rather than the running in circles that we currently are going through where we repeat the "Blake sucks", "no he doesn't", "Bane was BINO", "Bane was the best part", etc...

I'm very happy to hear you think that. I sometimes feel that I sound a bit too harsh and antagonistic in my posts. I'm glad I don't come off as that. As for you, I never got the impression that you were ever heated during our discussions. Quite the opposite actually. You always seem more calm than a lot of users here (that's not to say that most people here sound angry or disrespectful).

If you think about it, we have had the exact same arguments since last July. Nothing has changed for the most part. People arguing about whether or not stuff got contradicted, the 8 year gap, how Bruce gets back to Gotham, the ending, the knee brace, John Blake, etc. That's probably why we feel so burned out by this point. Some of us even sound like we are going crazy at this point, and insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results AKA using the same arguments over and over again and expecting to win the debate this time .

At the same time though, there is nothing else to talk about which is why we keep resorting to the same arguments about the same movie over and over again. At least with the previous movies, we knew we would get a sequel and we would balance out the discussions about the latest Batman movie with speculation on the next movie, whatever the next movie was at the time. But in this case, we don't know in which direction Batman in live-action is going, whether or not it will be rebooted, or even how long it will be till the next Batman film comes so there is sadly nothing to talk about but TDKR. We are basically stuck in limbo. The TDKR debates will probably die down when Man of Steel comes out. I'm assuming it's going to get our minds off TDKR for a while.

I fully agree. Hopefully Man of Steel will be the perfect antidote to put the general DC film fanbase back on the same page and give Batman on film some breathing room in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

^^I think there's much more to talk about while we're bored. For those who like the movie, the symbolism (I recently wrote an analysis about the symbolism and parallels in the film myself) and for those who don't like it, what they think could have improved it (without just the uncreative "this sucks") rather than the running in circles that we currently are going through where we repeat the "Blake sucks", "no he doesn't", "Bane was BINO", "Bane was the best part", etc...

With the billions plus dollers raking in with The Dark Knight Trilogy will future comic book movies move further away from the material? Just because the character wears a bat-suit and is named Bruce wayne does that make him Batman? To the general public does it matter? If the general public go to see these movies and it rakes in big how close should they stick to the material? But the general public must be fans in some ways if they are going to these films?

I fully agree. Hopefully Man of Steel will be the perfect antidote to put the general DC film fanbase back on the same page and give Batman on film some breathing room in general.

Even BB and TDK has its "haters", so there will never be a film that will get the entire DC fanbase behind it. I mean, TDKR has, really, the general DC fanbase behind it too as it's shown through the much critical acclaim and the money it racked in even while a few wants to disown the third installment.

But speaking on Venom, while no one has called it too unrealistic for Nolan's trilogy, the stuff that Bane inhales, it fit to the theme of TDKR with pain. Bruce is in pain in the Pit and climbs out of it. Bane is always in pain and uses a drugs that keeps it in bay while he never truly climbed out of the Pit and is symbolically still in there.

With the billions plus dollers raking in with The Dark Knight Trilogy will future comic book movies move further away from the material? Just because the character wears a bat-suit and is named Bruce wayne does that make him Batman? To the general public does it matter? If the general public go to see these movies and it rakes in big how close should they stick to the material? But the general public must be fans in some ways if they are going to these films?

Yes.

Whose to say the movies aren't also material? Maybe the comics are the ones not sticking close.

With the billions plus dollers raking in with The Dark Knight Trilogy will future comic book movies move further away from the material? Just because the character wears a bat-suit and is named Bruce wayne does that make him Batman? To the general public does it matter? If the general public go to see these movies and it rakes in big how close should they stick to the material? But the general public must be fans in some ways if they are going to these films?

In all honesty, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight didn't do that many major changes to the source material to the point where the only thing they have in common is that there's a guy in a Batsuit and he is named Bruce Wayne. In fact, some of the MCU movies deviated from the source material a lot more than BB and TDK. BB and TDK in fact pretty accurate to the source material if you look at what it was trying to adapt. The TDK trilogy is also overall the most faithful-to-the-comics version of Batman we got in live-action so far.

There are so many different versions and different ways of writing Batman that saying one adaptation is inaccurate while another one isn't is a very black and white way of looking at Batman. Thus whenever you look at a Batman adaptation and judge its faithfulness to the source material, first you have to be aware of what Batman it is trying to adapt.

Let's start with the Adam West show. You wouldn't watch it and complain that it is unfaithful because, for example, Batman isn't dark enough. You are aware going into the show that is is supposed to be a representation of the Silver Age Batman and you're supposed to judge it on how faithful it is to that particular version of Batman. And as a representation of the Silver Age Batman, it is a very accurate one.

Then there's Burton's Batman. Many people in the past (including me) have complained that Burton deviated too much from the comics by having Batman kill and stuff like that but you have to look at part of the Batman mythos Burton was trying to adapt. As a representation of the modern Batman, it is horrible but that it because the 1989 movie isn't meant to be a representation of the modern Batman (and I'm only talking about the '89 movie because I don't really care for Returns and the changes made there). The Burton movies, at least the first one, was based more on the Golden Age Batman that acted more like Burton's Batman (i.e. killing people). Even the look and feel of the movie was a lot more 1930's/40's ish. As a representation of the Golden Age Batman, Burton's Batman is not that inaccurate or at least the 1989 movie isn't that inaccurate (fans are more divided on Returns just like how they are on TDKR).

Then we get to Batman Forever which for the record, I don't think it is as bad as everyone says it is. A lot of people complain about the movie but when you analyze it, you begin to realize that it isn't that different from an early Bronze Age comic. The Bronze Age of comics was where the transition between the lighthearted silly comics and the more serious & mature comics occurred. Due to that, a lot of DC comics from the Bronze Age, they are somewhat of a mix between an adult comic of today and a more lighthearted silly comic of the Silver Age. Batman Forever is like that too. It has a lot of silly and lighthearted moments but it also has some serious moments like the part where Bruce talks about killing and the flashbacks. If you look at Forever as a representation of a Bronze Age comic, it isn't that bad. This is a bit of a different case though because Schumacher was probably not in the mindset that he was going to make a Bronze Age comic onto the big screen like how every other person that did Batman in live-action was under the mindset that they were going to adapt a specific part of the Batman mythos (I'll talk about Nolan in a sec). However, look at it this way. The Bronze Age is when writers tried to make comics more mature but the censorship from the Silver Age still got in the way a lot of the times. Schumacher wanted to make a more serious version of Batman from the beginning but WB forced him to include a lot of silly lighthearted things (and went even further in the next movie lol). It's a very similar situation to the early Bronze Age.

Then we get to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Technically, the Batman in these movies is the modern Batman we all know but isn't the modern Batman we all know almost simultaneously. He is based on a specific version of the modern Batman, which is the young inexperienced Batman from stories like Year One and The Long Halloween. Both films were heavily influenced by a lot of stories that took place in Batman's early career. Batman himself is not that different in terms of abilities in the Nolan films from his Year One counterpart of the comics either. Even the realistic/grounded feel of BB and TDK is something that all the stories that take place in Batman's very early career have as opposed to some revolutionary idea Nolan had like some people think - Frank Miller's Year One is specifically what they based the realism on. Year One is in fact even more grounded than both of the first Nolan films. BB and TDK were Batman at the beginning of his career still in his first year as Batman. He wasn't yet perfect or the Batgod that fights next to Superman from the comics but it made sense he wasn't that way yet due to that. However, if Nolan would've stuck with what he originally intended or at least with what it looked like he originally intended, Batman might've became the experienced Batman we all know and love by the end of the third movie (which obviously didn't happen for reasons we talked about over and over again). Looking at the Batman at the end of BB and then comparing him to the one at the beginning of TDK and at the end of TDK, you can see how much Bruce has grown in everything (abilities, intelligence, the way he operates, mentality, etc.). If you look at BB and TDK as an adaptation of the young Batman from Year One and Long Halloween, which is what that Batman was based on, it is not a bad adaptation at all. In fact, it may be the best adaptation we'll ever get of that specific version of Batman in live-action.

As you can see, almost every version of Batman we've had in live-action so far was based on a specific version of Batman from the comics and is an accurate portrayal of whatever version it was based on. And as dissapointed as I was with TDKR, its story borrows more from stories in the comics than any other Batman movie we've had so far despite the characters being bigger deviations from the source. That being said, I don't think further Batman movies will deviate more from the source material since most Batman films so far haven't deviated too far from the source material. If anything, the next Batman movie might be even closer to the source material than all the Batman movies we've had up till now since the Nolan franchise were even closer to the Batman of the comics we all know and love than any of the previous franchises. It would also seem like the natural next step for the next movie to have the "Batgod" of the comics. We've had the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, and early Modern Age versions of Batman all adapted onto the big screen already. Only takes left to adapt are the standard/normal Modern Age version (AKA the one of the current comics) and the late Modern Age version (i.e. Batman Beyond). Assuming that WB doesn't want the reboot to be a rehash of anything from before especially of the Nolan films, we may finally get a James Bond version of Batman - basically movies with all his villains established that just keep going and going. As for the general public, I think they're irrelevant to this and wouldn't care as long as you tell good stories.

We should be honest with ourselves...The Dark Knight Rises didn't stray much off from the source material either besides Bruce Wayne leaving Gotham City for good.

A lot of people have even said that TDKR is the most "comic-booky" of Nolan's three bat-films. I personally hate the term. It's always going to be a comic book film, because that is what the source material is based from. But that doesn't mean it can't think outside the box and be a damn great film.

We should be honest with ourselves...The Dark Knight Rises didn't stray much off from the source material either besides Bruce Wayne leaving Gotham City for good.

That's the main thing about TDKR hurts it as a Batman movie IMO. Him quitting like that at the end and the message behind the whole ending comes off as the exact opposite of what Batman would do and of what Batman is about. Not as a "different take" or "own spin" or anything like that but literally the exact opposite of everything that Batman is about. I've covered this multiple times already so I won't get into it again.

This is all just my opinion, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackWhite

A lot of people have even said that TDKR is the most "comic-booky" of Nolan's three bat-films. I personally hate the term. It's always going to be a comic book film, because that is what the source material is based from. But that doesn't mean it can't think outside the box and be a damn great film.

Exactly. Well said. I hate the term too. Those fans are simplifying the comic book medium to a genre as opposed to a medium. They are saying that anything that doesn't involve guys in tights in a lighthearted story is an invalid comic book movie.

A lot of people have even said that TDKR is the most "comic-booky" of Nolan's three bat-films. I personally hate the term. It's always going to be a comic book film, because that is what the source material is based from. But that doesn't mean it can't think outside the box and be a damn great film.

It goes both ways too actually. I hate the idea that TDKR gets called the most "comic-booky" of Nolan's trilogy and I hate when people say TDK isn't a CBM, lol. It sort of kinda flows hand in hand with the idea that TDKR holds all of these flaws and yet no one can look at TDK's flaws, lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

That's the main thing about TDKR hurts it as a Batman movie IMO. Him quitting like that at the end and the message behind the whole ending comes off as the exact opposite of what Batman would do and of what Batman is about. Not as a "different take" or "own spin" or anything like that but literally the exact opposite of everything that Batman is about. I've covered this multiple times already so I won't get into it again.

This is all just my opinion, of course.

Your opinion and I can respect it, but I feel like you're overlooking that this take fits Nolan's Batman to a T, so saying it goes against anything that Batman would do, while it makes sense by looking at the comics Batman, or Batman from Batman:TAS, it's fine with Nolan's take of the character. It might have seem different from the view of Batman Begins, but we got hints of Bruce wanting to create a symbol and then moving on from Batman in TDK. While it's rattled with the idea that Bruce needs Batman during TDKR, he still had to move on to fulfill the idea that was continued in the two previous films.

Your opinion and I can respect it, but I feel like you're overlooking that this take fits Nolan's Batman to a T, so saying it goes against anything that Batman would do, while it makes sense by looking at the comics Batman, or Batman from Batman:TAS, it's fine with Nolan's take of the character. It might have seem different from the view of Batman Begins, but we got hints of Bruce wanting to create a symbol and then moving on from Batman in TDK. While it's rattled with the idea that Bruce needs Batman during TDKR, he still had to move on to fulfill the idea that was continued in the two previous films.

This is a great point regarding comparisons between mediums. I feel like we all get caught up in comparing the movies to comics to television, etc. As long as we all can agree that the Bruce Wayne "story" is ongoing then we can hopefully agree that no medium is "wrong." Traditionally, yes, we have a good idea of what Bruce Wayne is about, but I hope we can still continue to stretch the character down different paths while still accepting him as Bruce Wayne.

This is a great point regarding comparisons between mediums. I feel like we all get caught up in comparing the movies to comics to television, etc. As long as we all can agree that the Bruce Wayne "story" is ongoing then we can hopefully agree that no medium is "wrong." Traditionally, yes, we have a good idea of what Bruce Wayne is about, but I hope we can still continue to stretch the character down different paths while still accepting him as Bruce Wayne.

Batman more than any other fictional character has thrived on reinvention and reinterpretation.

Your opinion and I can respect it, but I feel like you're overlooking that this take fits Nolan's Batman to a T, so saying it goes against anything that Batman would do, while it makes sense by looking at the comics Batman, or Batman from Batman:TAS, it's fine with Nolan's take of the character. It might have seem different from the view of Batman Begins, but we got hints of Bruce wanting to create a symbol and then moving on from Batman in TDK. While it's rattled with the idea that Bruce needs Batman during TDKR, he still had to move on to fulfill the idea that was continued in the two previous films.

I don't think it fits Nolan's version of Batman either. I think it is very out of character for all 3 versions of Batman (comics Batman, B:TAS Batman, and Nolan's Batman). As I said before, if you analyze BB and TDK, pretty much everything in those movies point to Bruce continuing to be Batman and it's not like you have to look too deep into them (at least not for me). They're all right there. This is something we discussed multiple times already and you already know my reasons for believing this so I won't repeat myself again. Based on BB and TDK, Bruce just quitting like that is the exact opposite of what I would expect Nolan's Batman to do as well.

I wrote this several months back. This is recap of all the things that point to this in BB and TDK:

Quote:

-The first two movies being heavily based on stories that take place in Batman's early years like Year One and The Long Halloween, even dealing with the same themes.
-Bruce gravely underestimating the threat to Gotham in Begins. It wasn't Falcone that was the the major threat, it was the LOS.
-Bruce not expecting to cause bad inspiration to Gotham via the copycats and the Joker.
-The whole theme about escalation and the "freaks" and how more and more have started appearing in Gotham due since Batman's arrival.
-Rachel leaving Bruce because she felt he was always going to need Batman.
-Rachel, the main reason Bruce wanted to quit being Batman in the first place so that he could be with her and have a normal life, is killed off essentially removing something that held him back.
-The Joker saying he and Batman were destined to do battle forever.
-Alfred saying Bruce can endure as Batman because he can take it.
-Gordon said they were going to hunt Batman because he can take it.
-Bruce seeing the man who he thought would be the perfect replacement for Batman be corrupted and brought down to the Joker's level.
-Nolan saying in an interview from 2008 that he doesn't want to bring in Robin into the franchise because his version of Batman was still in his early career as Batman thus Robin was still a little kid, which means he wouldn't appear for a "few films".
-Nolan saying in some book or interview before TDKR that Bruce's original plan was to be Batman for just a temporary time (couple of years or so) only to learn at some point that "things wouldn't be so easy".

These are all just off the top of my head.

As for him quitting in TDK, I argued before that Bruce's character arc in that movie is coming to the realization that he needs to be Batman forever and that he can't ever truly be happy. Yes, he did want to quit originally. That was his original plan. To be Batman for a little while until he cleans up Gotham and then hook up with Rachel and live a happy life. However, 2 things happened:

1) His entire reason for wanting to quit being Batman in the first place was Rachel. He wanted to live a happy life with Rachel. Now that reason was gone because of Joker killing her. If anything, Rachel was just an obstacle for him all along. She was holding him back. Her death pushed him further towards embracing his Batman persona, as shown by how much more calculative and obsessed he became after her death and until the end of the movie (the cellphone sonar machine he used to violate everyone's privacy is there to show that).

2) The man Bruce thought would be the one to replace him - Harvey - turned out to not be the man he was. Throughout the film, Joker tries to corrupt both Harvey and Batman. He succeeds in corrupting Harvey but fails corrupting Bruce and even tells him at the end that he is "truly incorruptible". This goes back to Batman Begins. "A man has limits and can be corrupted, but if you make yourself more than just a man, you become something else entirely - a legend." When Batman witnesses how easily Harvey was corrupted and realizes that there is a "higher class of criminal" that only HE can handle because he is "more than just a man" as opposed to just a man, that is when he comes to the realization that there is no replacement for the Batman. Not Harvey nor anyone else. No matter how good your intentions are, at the end of the day you are just a man and you can easily be corrupted (that's why it also surprises me that this is the same Batman who passed the mantle to Blake - Blake is not "more than just a man" (at least not yet) so how does he know someone like the Joker won't come along and corrupt him just like Harvey was?). With that realization came the realization that there is no escape from the Batman - it is who he is. This is all just my view, of course.

I remember when TDK came out, some people (not a lot but some) were saying how out of character Batman was in the movie because he was planning on quitting. Heck, even some of the people that love TDKR use that as an argument against those that complain about him quitting in the movie ("He wanted to quit in TDK too so why do you love that movie?") The analogy I use against those arguments was always this: Complaining about Batman wanting to quit in TDK would be the same thing as complaining that a book like To Kill A Mockingbird is racist because it uses the N word over and over again despite the whole message of the book being that racism is wrong.

And finally, as I said before to BatLobsterRises, the main thing that bothers me with Bruce quitting in TDKR has a lot more to do with the execution than the concept. I'm not a fan of the concept either but the execution is far far worse IMO.

It's not just that he wanted to quit in TDK. It's that he originally set out for his mission to be a finite endeavor, going back to BB. It was a fundamental staple of the characterization from the very beginning.

It comes down to this. The movies set it up as such that, if he ended up as Batman for a long period of time with no end in sight, the story would have become a tragedy. Instead we got a story of a man who lives through some very tragic setbacks in life but is ultimately able to rise above them and move beyond the compulsion to deal with his problems in a highly self-destructive and illegal way. I think it's a lacking interpretation of TDK to take the point of the movie as, "Yeah he's gotta be Batman forever because he's the goddamn Batman YEAH!" Sorry, no. The movie has a lot more subtlety to its message than that. It's about how the symbol of Batman is malleable and can be adjusted to serve the needs of Gotham even if that means becoming the villain/outcast. Batman can become the villain without destroying the city's spirit like the truth about Dent would, because Batman was always on that edge to begin with. Again, it's about the SYMBOL. We see the bat-signal destroyed. It's about how the city's relationship with Batman has to inevitably change after the events of TDK. It really has nothing to do with how long he's going to be Batman for. I understand why some people read it that way, but I truly believe that is just a result of projecting one's own ideals about the character onto the movie. The TDK ending is nice because it's very poetic and allows us all to do that, but ultimately there was still a very specific story being told.

The story of Bruce Wayne always teeters on being a tragedy, and I suppose he is such a tragic figure partly because his crusade never ends in the comics. I like to think of the Nolan movies as a complete story that offers snapshots into the eternal nature of some things in the comics. The TDK ending especially, as it even has a nod to Batman/Joker's battle lasting forever. It was paying homage to the timeless nature of the Batman story, while being a story in which time passes and things change.

I don't think it fits Nolan's version of Batman either. I think it is very out of character for all 3 versions of Batman (comics Batman, B:TAS Batman, and Nolan's Batman). As I said before, if you analyze BB and TDK, pretty much everything in those movies point to Bruce continuing to be Batman and it's not like you have to look too deep into them (at least not for me). They're all right there. This is something we discussed multiple times already and you already know my reasons for believing this so I won't repeat myself again. Based on BB and TDK, Bruce just quitting like that is the exact opposite of what I would expect Nolan's Batman to do as well.

I wrote this several months back. This is recap of all the things that point to this in BB and TDK:

As for him quitting in TDK, I argued before that Bruce's character arc in that movie is coming to the realization that he needs to be Batman forever and that he can't ever truly be happy. Yes, he did want to quit originally. That was his original plan. To be Batman for a little while until he cleans up Gotham and then hook up with Rachel and live a happy life. However, 2 things happened:

1) His entire reason for wanting to quit being Batman in the first place was Rachel. He wanted to live a happy life with Rachel. Now that reason was gone because of Joker killing her. If anything, Rachel was just an obstacle for him all along. She was holding him back. Her death pushed him further towards embracing his Batman persona, as shown by how much more calculative and obsessed he became after her death and until the end of the movie (the cellphone sonar machine he used to violate everyone's privacy is there to show that).

2) The man Bruce thought would be the one to replace him - Harvey - turned out to not be the man he was. Throughout the film, Joker tries to corrupt both Harvey and Batman. He succeeds in corrupting Harvey but fails corrupting Bruce and even tells him at the end that he is "truly incorruptible". This goes back to Batman Begins. "A man has limits and can be corrupted, but if you make yourself more than just a man, you become something else entirely - a legend." When Batman witnesses how easily Harvey was corrupted and realizes that there is a "higher class of criminal" that only HE can handle because he is "more than just a man" as opposed to just a man, that is when he comes to the realization that there is no replacement for the Batman. Not Harvey nor anyone else. No matter how good your intentions are, at the end of the day you are just a man and you can easily be corrupted (that's why it also surprises me that this is the same Batman who passed the mantle to Blake - Blake is not "more than just a man" (at least not yet) so how does he know someone like the Joker won't come along and corrupt him just like Harvey was?). With that realization came the realization that there is no escape from the Batman - it is who he is. This is all just my view, of course.

I remember when TDK came out, some people (not a lot but some) were saying how out of character Batman was in the movie because he was planning on quitting. Heck, even some of the people that love TDKR use that as an argument against those that complain about him quitting in the movie ("He wanted to quit in TDK too so why do you love that movie?") The analogy I use against those arguments was always this: Complaining about Batman wanting to quit in TDK would be the same thing as complaining that a book like To Kill A Mockingbird is racist because it uses the N word over and over again despite the whole message of the book being that racism is wrong.

And finally, as I said before to BatLobsterRises, the main thing that bothers me with Bruce quitting in TDKR has a lot more to do with the execution than the concept. I'm not a fan of the concept either but the execution is far far worse IMO.

Quote:

-The first two movies being heavily based on stories that take place in Batman's early years like Year One and The Long Halloween, even dealing with the same themes.
-Bruce gravely underestimating the threat to Gotham in Begins. It wasn't Falcone that was the the major threat, it was the LOS.
-Bruce not expecting to cause bad inspiration to Gotham via the copycats and the Joker.
-The whole theme about escalation and the "freaks" and how more and more have started appearing in Gotham due since Batman's arrival.
-Rachel leaving Bruce because she felt he was always going to need Batman.
-Rachel, the main reason Bruce wanted to quit being Batman in the first place so that he could be with her and have a normal life, is killed off essentially removing something that held him back.
-The Joker saying he and Batman were destined to do battle forever.
-Alfred saying Bruce can endure as Batman because he can take it.
-Gordon said they were going to hunt Batman because he can take it.
-Bruce seeing the man who he thought would be the perfect replacement for Batman be corrupted and brought down to the Joker's level.
-Nolan saying in an interview from 2008 that he doesn't want to bring in Robin into the franchise because his version of Batman was still in his early career as Batman thus Robin was still a little kid, which means he wouldn't appear for a "few films".
-Nolan saying in some book or interview before TDKR that Bruce's original plan was to be Batman for just a temporary time (couple of years or so) only to learn at some point that "things wouldn't be so easy".

These are all just off the top of my head.

You're viewing the idea that since The Dark Knight is inspired by The Long Halloween, that it should've created this "rise of freaks" when there's only one freak that ends up being captured and the other is hidden away from society and given a lie that this other freak died a hero. That, to me, does not scream like a "rise of freaks" would commence as Joker's try of creating someone like him didn't turn out so good and Gordon and Batman ended up getting their way with keeping Dent as this "white knight". And heck, look at the idea that The Long Halloween is a sequel to Year One, and The Dark Knight Returns, which is the main basis for The Dark Knight Rises, is a sequel to Year One in many ways as they are both in Miller's Batman universe.

And the line from Joker can be looked past when it's Batman's line that ends the debate before Joker's claim of Dent's true self being looked at that will change the landscape of Gotham. "You'll be in a padded cell forever." While I understand how some will view Joker's line as being something of more importance, we can take the dialogue for just what it his and Joker and Batman just not keeping in in their pants and having a dialogue of wits.

Now while there were those Batman copycats in the beginning of TDK, it still didn't stop Bruce Wayne into trying to find someone else to take up the reigns as Gotham City's protector. Harvey Dent was turned by the Joker, but Bruce ends up finding someone else, and this time someone who would now actually embrace the cape and cowl as Dent sure wouldn't.

Alfred and Gordon saying Batman can take it has nothing to do with Bruce Wayne staying as Batman forever. In fact, Batman did take it as he became the criminal. He didn't have to waste the GCPD's time and have them chase him like clock work, but Batman became the villain instead of people admiring him; Batman did take it.

And Alfred also told Bruce to know his limits, and there is a time when Bruce could no longer be Batman and finally be happy. The girl wasn't Rachel, but it was going to be someone and for the longest, Bruce didn't care about finding that other woman that would make him happy. He finally did with Selina Kyle.

It isn't in Batman's early years when Robin does show up, and it's also a new take on Robin, so it still fits with Nolan talking about how Robin won't show up early in the game. And Batman also went through something that wasn't easy, as you mentioned Nolan said as well. He went through that rough patch for not being able to be the Batman that Bruce wanted to be.

It's totally fine if you didn't like the ending, totally fine, but certain complaints that could be viewed as retconning BB and TDK...they can be answered and explained where it isn't a form of retcon at all.

The ONLY thing I was not satisfied with in the entire trilogy was Bane's death. I thought it was a lame end to his awesome character. It's the only change I would have made in the entire trilogy. Although I can't think of a good death for him right now, anything is better than just getting shot offscreen by Catwoman and getting forgotten about